Goldie’s Act: Unveiling this Deceptive Legislation By Carlotta Cooper for The Cavalry Group
Americans may be the most kind-hearted people on earth. When it comes to helping those in need, including animals, there is no question about their generosity. That’s why it has been so easy for animal rights groups to scam their way into the pocketbooks of unwary people, begging for donations with sad stories. Just as bad, these groups push for legislation that is harmful to animal-related businesses. The so- called “Goldie’s Act” is one of these bills. As introduced in Congress, H.R. 1788 or Goldie’s Act would supposedly increase enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. When you look at the details, all that glitters is not so gold. In reality, the bill would make enforcement of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) more difficult. It could also lead to the unnecessary seizure and euthanasia of dogs. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), under which professional dog breeders operate, has been updated multiple times, including updates in recent years. The regulations have never been tougher. Breeders are inspected before getting a license; and they are inspected regularly after they are licensed. They must follow a handbook with several hundred pages of regulations in order to pass their inspections and retain their license. They can be written up for any violations which they must then correct before the inspector comes back to check them. Failure to correct a violation can lead to heavy fines or worse. Inspectors can report any serious problems with animals to local law enforcement to be followed up on for animal cruelty. There are serious remedies for any breeder who fails to follow AWA regulations. Animal rights zealots seek even more punitive actions against dog breeders since their ultimate goal is to end all dog breeding. Goldie’s Act is highly problematic. The act would: • Redefine “violations” of the federal Animal Welfare Act; • Allow for immediate seizure or euthanasia of animals suffering from “psychological harm,” a term it does not define; • Remove distinctions between minor non-compliances such as paperwork errors and animal care violations. AWA enforcement emphasis should be on the health and welfare of animals; • Require posting of images of violations on a publicly accessible database so breeders can be harassed; and • Undermine the property rights of responsible breeders.
good” measure which doesn’t do what it claims. Advocates say that it would improve the Animal Welfare Act when, in fact, it would create mistrust between breeders and inspectors. Instead of emphasizing proper education and care for dogs, it would lead to confusion. It would create an atmosphere of potential abuse and the unnecessary euthanasia of dogs. Goldie’s Act would remove the distinction between “direct” violations (care and welfare) which are more serious; and paperwork or non-welfare “indirect” violations. Animals could be confiscated for paperwork errors. Breeders should always strive to have zero violations but the care and well- being of animals must take precedence. By equating direct and indirect violations, the act would create misleading perceptions about breeders licensed under the Animal Welfare Act. Extremists could use this information from public databases to harass breeders who had only been cited for paperwork violations. As for the “psychological harm” of a dog, how would an inspector determine this condition? This vague, undefined term could lead to the euthanasia of perfectly normal dogs. Many people probably have quirky dogs that someone could mistakenly label “psychologically harmed.” What is the criteria for this kind of dog? No dog owner should have to fear the arbitrary seizure and euthanasia of their dog based on a vague term such as “psychological harm.” The bill claims that it would expand the enforcement of federal breeder licensing requirements yet it tosses out recent enforcement enhancements that are in the middle of a 3-year implementation process (scheduled to be completed in October 2024). It is illogical to pass a bill to expand licensing requirements in the midst of new enforcement improvements. Breeders rightly point out that constantly changing arbitrary rules creates a confusing, expensive, and potentially harmful environment for animal care that leaves licensees, inspectors, and regulators unclear about AWA requirements. Goldie’s Act would apply not just to large-scale commercial breeders. Any breeder is subject to USDA licensing if they have more than four “breeding females” and transfers even one of the offspring “sight unseen.” “Breeding females” has never been clearly defined but it is generally taken to mean an intact female. “Breeding females” includes any combination of dogs, cats, or other small pet mammals such as hamsters, guinea pigs, etc. You could theoretically have one female dog and three female hamsters, breed a litter of puppies, and be subject to Goldie’s Act. That means that someone could be a show dog breeder and fall under Goldie’s Act, if they are required to be USDA-licensed. Despite claims to the contrary, Goldie’s Act would affect
Like many animal rights proposals, Goldie’s Act is a “feel
45
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog